630.71
Or3e1
no.812
c3
Beef Carcass
Evaluation Contest
'DOCUMENT
cou.ecTios
OREGON
tOLLECTios
I.
64904.9,
7
Cooperative Extension Service
Oregon State University
Corvallis''
This bulletin was prepared by J. C. Miller, professor and head
of the Department of Animal Science, and John H. Landers, Jr. and
W. Dean Frischknecht, Extension animal science specialists, Oregon
State University.
The contest described was held at the 1962 Pacific International
Livestock Exposition in Portland, Oregon. It was sponsored by the
Oregon Beef Cattle Improvement Association, the Oregon Cattlemen's Association, the Pacific International Livestock Exposition,
and Oregon State University.
Appreciation for making the contest possible is extended to
Kienow's Food Stores of Portland, the Oregon Beef Council, the
Armour Packing Company, the Market Supply Company of Portland, and the progressive cattle breeders who entered their steers in
competition.
Beef Carcass Evaluation Contest
Introduction
"Mr. Paulus, that's the most beauti-
ful roast I've ever seen !" This was
Mrs. Murphy's reaction when she
stopped at the super market to pick up
the standing rib roast she'd ordered
for a dinner in honor of her husband's
boss. She'd been specific '.. . it must
.
be Choice grade, between 7 and 8
pounds, nicely marbled and not too fat!
Mr. Paulus hadn't disappointed her ;
carcass weight of many beef carcasses
to prepare cuts for the retail trade?
Because Mrs. Murphy won't buy the
cuts with that much fat on them. The
consumer doesn't want it, the retailer
doesn't want it, and the packer doesn't
want it, yet it comes with the carcass.
Nobody wants it, yet some one pays
for it. Who? The consumer, yet she
doesn't want it and doesn't take it
the roast he brought out was just to home with her.
her order. She was very pleased
until she heard the price ! Really, she
hadn't realized it would be so high,
what with her rancher friend and his
The fat trim which the retailer sells
at 11 cents per pound adds materially
to the consumer price of beef. It also
cost the feeder more than he got for it
wife talking about the price they were when he sold the live animal. Why
getting for cattle these days. It looked then, does the feeder finish his cattle
pretty obvious that somebody was get- to that degree of wastiness ? Because
ting rich at the expense of the con- he is trying to make choice quality catsumer. She knew a standing rib roast tle which command a premium price.
was one of the most desirable cuts, Unfortunately, cattlemen and meat
but that hardly explained the price she men cannot consistently identify qualwas being charged.
ity carcass grades in the live animal.
Mr. Paulus was glad to have the op- Furthermore, cattle differ widely in
portunity to explain that part of the their lean-to-fat ratio, even when the
cost was because he trimmed his cuts same age, on the same feed, and fed to
the way his customers like themwith the same slaughter weight. Degree of
less than one half inch fat cover. In
fact, he'd trimmed almost 11 pounds
marbling largely determines quality
grade. Some cattle will marble to choice
of fat from this 8-pound roast. He explained that he gets only Li- cents per
pound for the fat trim and that his loss
has to be spread over the cuts he sells.
grade with less than one half inch fat
cover over the rib, while others may
require an inch or more outside fat to
reach choice grade. These differences
are largely hereditary, which means
the lean-fat ratio can be improved by
Mrs. Murphy accepted the roast
knowing it would please her husband's
boss, but feeling upset with what
seemed to be too high a price to the
consumer.
Mrs. Murphy's experience is repeated many times daily by other shoppers at super markets. Why is it neces-
selection.
Identification of breeding stock that
will produce the most desirable market
animals for all segments of the beef
business is a major problem confront-
ing the industry: The fast growing,
sary to trim off up to 25-30% of the high gaining, well muscled animal that
3
will yield a quality carcass of popular
weight with a minimum of waste fat
trim is desired by the breeder, feeder,
processor, and retailer and should be
less expensive to the consumer. Fortunately for producers, the larger
framed, heavier muscled kind also
make faster and cheaper gains. If beef
is to continue to be America's first
choice at the meat counter, it must remain competitive in price.
The 1962 Contest
Current trends in meat merchandis- trucked to the Armour Packing Plant
ing, consumer preference, and carcass where they were slaughtered. The carevaluation studies have created an ac- casses were graded by two USDA
tive interest in carcass contests and
methods of on-foot identification of
graders on October 15. The 10 top
carcasses were selected by a committee
of 4, including the 2 graders, D. A.
Barnard, Meat Buyer for Kienow's
Food Stores, who purchased the carcasses, and a University meats spegrade. It is hoped that such contests cialist. Carcasses were identified by
will help to alert all segments of the number. None of the selection commit-
carcass differences. The 1962 contest
was held for the purpose of focusing
attention on the differences in value of
beef carcasses within the same quality
beef industry to these differences, and
lead to merchandising slaughter cattle
according to their true value. This in
turn should provide the necessary incentive for breeders and feeders to do
tee had seen the live animals.
Because pre-weighing treatment was
not uniform for all steers, carcass
weights do not provide valid comparisons of dressing percent. Following the
a better job of satisfying consumer
grading and selection, all carcasses
preference.
Eighteen
were measured and photographed. The
wholesale rib from the right side of each
of the top 10 carcasses was displayed in
a refrigerated case at the Pacific International Livestock Exposition on Tuesday, October 16, and for the duration
of the show. Preliminary carcass data
was also released at that time.
steers
consisting of 7
Angus, 5 Hereford, and 6 Shorthorns
were entered in the contest by 10
breeders from 4 states. They were en-
tered as junior yearlings (calved between January 1 and April 30, 1961)
or summer yearlings (calved between
May 1 and August 31, 1961). Minimum weight of 1,000 pounds was required for junior yearlings and 800
pounds for summer yearlings. Four
steers failed to meet the weight requirements for junior yearlings and
were eliminated from competition.
After they were weighed and photographed, the steers were placed on foot
Friday morning, October 12, by a committee of four competent judges, consisting of two breeders, a commission
The left side of the carcasses aged
until Tuesday, October 23, when they
were broken down into trimmed retail
cuts. To insure uniformity, 10 of Kienow's meat cutters, under the supervision of D. A. Barnard, working on a
disassembly line basis, cut and trimmed
the carcasses for retail sale. Oregon
State University personnel observed
and recorded the results.
All carcasses graded low choice or
man, and a University professor. Im- higher. The following statement
mediately after judging, the steers were
4
taken from Mr. Barnard's report :
:
is
"The valuation was placed on them
starting from the standard of 45¢ per
pound packing house rail value. They were
cut against a 16¢ per pound retail market
value standard price list mark up, which
with labor, operating cost, and advertising
cost produces about 1¢ per pound net for
the retailer. It is interesting, yet astound-
that within comparable grades, fat
trim is by far the most important factor determining the true retail value of
the carcass. This points up the need
for an accurate and practical means of
determining the lean-fat ratio or cuta-
ing and alarming, to note that there is a
13.56 cents per pound difference in the
value of these cattle from the top to the
bottom for the retailer when cut for sale.
In these tests, it can all be traced to the
amount of outside, inside, and internal
bility of a slaughter animal and its
meat tissue to size of carcass that make
the difference in the retail value of these
worth.
carcass fat with the smaller amount of red
carcass. Furthermore, it reveals the
weakness of our present marketing
system, where all too frequently high
cutability animals sell too low and
wasty ones sell for more than they are
Because the steers were shown by
breed and by age (junior and summer
As noted in Table 1, the top carcass yearlings), the groups were so small
(No. 5) had a retail value of $62.76 that on-foot placings do not have much
per 100 pounds, while the bottom car- meaning. However, steer No. 17 was
cass (No. 14) was worth only $49.89 the unanimous choice of the four
cattle."
per 100 pounds. At the wholesale level,
these carcasses were worth $47.53 and
$33.97 per 100 pounds, respectively.
Using the wholesale values and assum-
ing that hide and offal cover the cost
of slaughter (standard procedure),
steer No. 5 was worth $28.50 per 100
pounds on foot and steer No. 14 was
judges for grand champion, yet his
carcass ranked fifth in dollar value per
hundred pounds. Steer No. 5 which produced the top value carcass was placed
third in the summer yearling Hereford class, and steer No. 8 which produced the second place carcass was the
fourth place summer yearling. Car-
worth $21.60, a difference of $6.90 per
casses
steer. Both carcasses graded low choice
horn steer were not selected among the
100 pounds or $69 on a 1,000 pound
produced by
the champion
Angus steer and the champion Short-
and probably both steers would have top 10 carcasses for breaking down
sold for the same price under current into trimmed retail cuts, because they
were considered too fat by the judgmarketing procedure.
It is of interest (Table 2) that 4
Hereford, 3 Angus, and 3 Shorthorn
carcasses were selected in the top 10,
indicating that there are good ones in
all breeds and no breed has a monopoly.
The percent bone obtained by cutting and trimming for retail is almost
constant (Figure 1). It is also of interest to note the relation between per-
cent fat trim and percent consumer
cuts. Figure 2 shows a straight line relationship between percent fat trim and
retail value of carcass. It is obvious
ing committee.
The estimated yield of trimmed retail cuts (Table 2) and the correspond-
ing yield grades made by the USDA
graders ranks the cutability of the carcasses almost exactly in the same order
as their actual retail cut out value. For
example, the dual grade of carcass No.
5 is Choice 2+, while that of carcass
No. 14 is Choice 5. The remaining
eight carcasses are relatively close, and,
except for No. 13, were all given a
Choice 3 grade. On the basis of these
10 carcasses, it appears that dual grading offers a practical and reasonably
5
Table 1. Summary of Cutting Data
Rank in
carcass
value
Carcass
1
5
2
8
3
3
6
17
4
5
no.
6
7
18
8
4
9
10
1
13
14
Percent
trimmed cuts
Percent
steaks Percent Percent
fat
and
lean
Hind- Foretrim
trim
quarter quarter roasts
23.0
22.5
21.5
21.5
21.6
20.5
20.1
31.1
27.8
26.3
27.2
27.5
25.8
27.0
19.4
19.1
18.1
25.6
25.6
23.8
46.9
45.6
42.3
42.2
43.1
40.8
40.6
39.5
38.1
35.7
23.1
24.4
23.8
24.1
20.5
22.7
20.0
14.0
15.6
18.5
17.8
20.7
21.1
23.1
23.4
24.3
21.8
22.2
22.4
27.6
Percent
shank
and
soupbone
Percent
Percent cutting
Wholesale
Live
animal
Retail
value/
value/
value/
bone
loss
cwt.
cwt.
cwt.
1.3
1.9
1.7
$47.53
46.13
42.93
42.75
41.54
40.13
40.00
37.99
1.1
38.11
4.2
9.5
1.2
33.97
$28.52
28.00
25.46
24.90
25.57
24.53
24.40
22.84
23.56
21.63
$62.76
60.80
57.96
3.0
3.7
3.6
4.3
2.8
3.8
11.3
11.1
11.2
11.6
10.4
10.5
10.1
10.4
10.3
3.4
2.6
2.6
-
0.7
1.6
1.3
1.6
1.3
57.41
55.83
55.44
55.10
53.57
53.19
49.89
Table 2. Summary of Slaughter and Carcass Data
Rank in Anicarcass
value
mal
no.
Breed
Live
wt.
USDA carcass grade
Cold Dressing
carcass
wt. percent'
Con formation2
Marbling3
Quality
Fat Rib-eye
Est.
area
thickper
yield
ness
trimmed Yield over 100 lbs.
cuts' grade' 12th rib carcass
Inches Square
Percent
inches
8
Hereford
Hereford
910
840
3
Angus
880
1
5
2
3
4
6
6
17
18
7
13
8
9
4
10
14
5
1
Hereford
Hereford
Angus
Shorthorn
Angus
Shorthorn
Shorthorn
1,025
900
965
895
890
880
1,090
510
522
597
554
590
546
60.0
60.7
59.3
58.3
61.6
61.1
61.0
535
60.1
544
61.8
63.7
54-6
694
CCCC-
SI.+
Mt.+
Sm.+
ChoiceChoiceChoice
Choice-
Mdt.
Choice+
Mt.
Mdt.± Choice+
C-
G+
G+
Choice+
SI. Ab.- Choice
Mdt.
Mt.+
Mdt.-
ChoiceChoice-
53.8
51.6
51.3
51.0
49.7
51.6
49.4
50.4
50.3
45.5
2+
3
3
0.3
0.4
0.4
3
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.7
3
0.5
5
1.1
3
3
3+
4
2.72
2.37
2.16
2.12
2.18
2.35
1.97
2.10
2.10
1.94
C = Cho'ce ; G = Good.
Preslaughter treatment not uniform.
Marbling : SI. Ab. = slightly abundant ; Mdt. =-- moderate ; Mt. = modest ;; Sm. = small ;; SI. --=- slight.
*Estimate made by USDA graders based on area of rib eye, thickness of fat covering, kidney knob, trim fat, carcass weight and
;
;
conformation.
Yield or cutability grade combined with quality grade comprises the dual grade.
Percent Consumer Cuts
4.1
5
8 '4 ;It' WeAkt4 1 'TA gt7,st.
6
'
" "It
'
1.-. w..,,-,.
:
if .
'.
,,,-Y.T..-
.'1,14',,,,,it'''''f,-
04,;Z'l 700,4"1:045"Ar l't
I
4
Mre z-tf.:
NM 42'.
13
"4:" ' e,A
A
,ff:
vow- -' ' '44ii
4C4',S... '
r
18 .,A0Ik..15'.;!i, :,,an.r."01i*, ?`%1".:4AZ,-.!vle'12it A r
17 1g1N)Nai; 0 '
11
(M.C45, 2215,474F0.1
6ricit v.d.A74. ;;;....0. 4p....*--1:47
'1'v iT*0.4'. !.`.1"y7- .4.44;41 ; '.1-.6
3
r
Trim Fat Bone
'. ,
H1oo rt sm.r
A
Mil
A
gIl
A
'-A4.wiiiiiiiiiiii
1
14
0
.
20
40
60.
I1/ I
A
810
100
Percent
Figure 1.
Results of the retail cutting test.
accurate means of evaluating the cutability of beef carcasses.
growthy, large framed type with good
muscling make the fastest and cheapest
In view of the wide differences in
gains and also produce carcasses of
true value of beef carcasses within the
same quality grade, it is obvious that
present systems of merchandising cat-
highest cutability. Cattlemen should ob-
tle and carcasses do not reflect these
tain all the carcass information they
can get on their cattle to guide them in
their breeding and feeding programs.
differences. Although fatness or degree
Unfortunately, until a practical
of finish is influenced by length of
method of marketing cattle according
to their true value is available, there is
feeding period, it is an established fact
that the lean to fat ratio varies within
comparable lots of cattle of the same
little incentive for cattlemen to improve
the carcass merit of their cattle. USDA
age and fed for the same length of
dual grading is a step in the right di-
time. Muscling and the lean to fat ratio
are hereditary. So is the ability to gain
rapidly and economically. Accordingly,
rection, but its acceptance by the industry appears doubtful. In the meantime,
cattlemen should select for muscling
and for rate and economy of gain. Fortunately, feeding trials followed by
carcass cutting tests reveal that the
8
processors will pay a slight premium
for meaty cattle and penalize wasty,
low-yielding cattle. However, the spread
between them does not reflect their true
value as indicated by cutting tests.
$ 65
ti)
Carcass No.
60
b55
c
az)
413
1.13
45
JO
15
20
25
30
Percent Fat Trim
Figure 2.
Relation of fat trim to carcass value.
9
Steer No. 1
No. 1
BreedShorthorn
Live weight-880 lbs.
Cold dressed weight-544 lbs.
USDA quality gradeChoiceCarcass conformationGood+
Marbling scoreModest+
USDA yield grade-3
Fat thickness-0.5 inch
Rib-eye area/cwt.-2.1 sq. in.
% fat trim-22.4
% steaks and roasts-38.1
% lean trim-24.3
Wholesale value/cwt.$38.11
Retail value/cwt.$53.19
Live value/cwt.$23.56
10
Steer No. 3
No. 3
BreedAngus
Live weight-880 lbs.
Cold dressed weight-522 lbs.
USDA quality gradeChoice
Carcass conformationChoice-
Marbling scoreModerate+
USDA yield grade-3
Fat thickness-0.4 inch
Rib-eye area/cwt.-2.16 sq. in.
% fat trim-18.5
% steaks and roasts-42.8
% lean trim-23.8
Wholesale value/cwt.$42.93
Retail value/cwt.$57.96
Live value/cwt.$25.46
11
Steer No. 4
4111111111111101111111111111111111110
EMI
IIII
II
No. 4
BreedAngus
Live weight-890 lbs.
Cold dressed weight-535 lbs.
USDA quality gradeChoice
Carcass conformationGood I
Marbling scoreS1. abundant
USDA yield grade-3
Fat thickness 0.7 inch
Rib-eye area/cwt.-2.1 sq. in.
% fat trim-22.2
% steaks and roasts-40.5
4
12
% lean trim-23.4
Wholesale value/cwt.$37.99
Retail value/cwt.$53.57
Live value/cwt.$22.84
Steer No. 5
9114444
^
Mt=
No. 5
BreedHereford
Live weight-910 lbs.
Cold dressed weight-546 lbs.
USDA quality gradeChoiceCarcass conformationChoice-
Marbling scoreModestUSDA yield grade-2+
Fat thickness-0.3 inch
Rib-eye area/cwt.-2.72 sq. in.
4
% fat trim-14.0
% steaks and roasts-46.9
% lean trim-23.1
Wholesale value/cwt.$47.53
Retail value/cwt.$62.76
Live value/cwt.$28.52
13
Steer No. 6
ATM
'11111111..
1111111miri-
ettrt
No. 6
L BreedHereford
Live weight-1,025 lbs.
Cold dressed weight-597 lbs.
USDA quality gradeChoiceCarcass conformationChoice-
Marbling scoreSmall+'
5
USDA yield grade-3
Fat thickness-0.4 inch
Rib-eye area/cwt.-2.12 sq. in.
% fat trim-17.8
% steaks and roasts-42.2
% lean trim-24.1
Wholesale value/cwt.$42.75
Retail value/cwt.$57.41
Live value/cwt.$24.90
14
Steer No. 8
-
No. 8
BreedHereford
Live weight-840 lbs.
Cold dressed weight-510 lbs.
USDA quality gradeChoiceCarcass conformationChoiceMarbling scoreSlight+
USDA yield grade-3
Fat thickness-0.4 inch
Rib-eye area/cwt.-2.37 sq. in.
% fat trim-15.6
% steaks and roasts-45.6
8
715.
% lean trim-24.4
Wholesale value/cwt.$46.13
Retail value/cwt.$60.80
Live value/cwt.$28.00
15
Steer No. 13
No. 13
BreedShorthorn
Live weight-895 lbs.
Cold dressed weight-546 lbs.
USDA quality gradeChoice+
Carcass conformationChoice6
Marbling scoreModerate
USDA yield grade-4
Fat thickness-0.6 inch
9, Rib-eye area/cwt.-1.97 sq. in.
% fat trim-23.1
13
r,
16
% steaks and roasts-40.6
% lean trim-20.0
Wholesale value/cwt.$40.00
Retail value/cwt.$55.10
Live value/cwt.$24.40
Steer No. 14
No. 14
BreedShorthorn
Live weight-1,090 lbs.
Cold dressed weight-694 lbs.
3. USDA quality gradeChoiceCarcass conformationChoice
Marbling scoreModerateUSDA yield grade-5
Fat thickness-1.1 inch
Rib-eye area/cwt.-1.94 sq. in.
% fat trim-27.6
% steaks and roasts-35.7
14
% lean trim-21.8
Wholesale value/cwt.$33.97
Retail value/cwt.$49.89
Live value/cwt.$21.63
17
Steer No. 17
No. 17
BreedHereford
Live weight-900 lbs.
Cold dressed weight-554 lbs.
USDA quality gradeChoice+
Carcass conformationChoice
Marbling scoreModerate
USDA yield grade-3
.8.
Fat thickness-0.7 inch
Rib-eye area/cwt.-2.18 sq. in.
% fat trim-20.7
% steaks and roasts-42.1
13.
18
% lean trim-20.5
Wholesale value/cwt.$41.54
Retail value/cwt.$55.83
Live value/cwt.$25.57
Steer No. 18
No. 18
BreedAngus
Live weight-965 lbs.
Cold dressed weight-590 lbs.
USDA quality gradeChoice-fCarcass conformationChoice
7.
Marbling scoreModerate+
USDA yield grade-3+
Fat thickness-0.3 inch
Rib-eye area/cwt.-2.35 sq. in.
% fat trim-21.1
% steaks and roasts-40.8
18
12.
% lean trim-22.7
Wholesale value/cwt.$40.13
Retail value/cwt.$55.44
Live value/cwt.$24.53
19
'COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK
In Agriculture and Home Economics
State of Oregon
Oregon State University and the U. S.
Department of Agriculture Cooperating
Oregon State University, Corvallis
Dear Friend:
We are glad to be of service in providing this material in answer
to your request.
As you may know, the Cooperative Extension Service is an educational agency of Oregon State University at Corvallis, cooperating
with the U. S. Department of Agriculture and the local governing
bodies of all counties in the state and a few cities.
The purpose of the Extension Service is to make available to the
people of the state the latest information on agriculture and home
economics and to help them make use of such information in the improvement of incomes and family living. Extension serves men,
women, andthrough 4-H club workboys and girls.
If you are not already acquainted with your County Extension
Agents, we hope you will call on them at your first opportunity. They
are the local representatives of Oregon State University. They will
welcome an opportunity to be of service to you, through an office or
telephone call, or, if the problem requires it, through a personal
visit to your farm or home.
If our local representatives do not have the information you de-
sire, they may obtain the help and advice of our campus staff of
specialists in various fields of 'agriculture and home economics. In
this way, the services of yoirr-State University are made available
regardless of where, you mai', live in the state. This is a public service
and no charge is made to Oregon residents.
-
Sincerely yours,
Dean and Director